Monday, October 15, 2018

Quote About Artificial Intelligence

Machine learning and artificial intelligence are tools. They can be used in a right or a wrong way, like everything else. It is the way that they are used that should concerns us, not the methods themselves. Human greed and human unintelligence scare me far more than artificial intelligence.”

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Basics of "Luck"

Luck is the experience of notably positive, negative, or improbable events. The naturalistic interpretation is that positive and negative events happen all the time in human lives, both due to random and non-random natural and artificial processes, and that even improbable events can happen by random chance. In this view, being "lucky" or "unlucky" is simply a descriptive label that points out an event's positivity, negativity, or improbability.

Supernatural interpretations of luck consider it to be an attribute of a person or object, or the result of a favorable or unfavorable view of a deity upon a person. These interpretations often prescribe how luckiness or unluckiness can be obtained, such as by carrying a lucky charm or making sacrifices or prayers to a deity. Saying someone is "born lucky" then might mean, depending on the interpretation, anything from that they have been born into a good family or circumstance, or that they habitually experience improbably positive events due to some inherent property or the lifelong favor of a god or goddess in a monotheistic or polytheistic religion.

Many superstitions are related to luck, though these are often specific to a given culture or set of related cultures, and sometimes contradictory. For example, lucky symbols include the number 7 in Christian-influenced cultures, but the number 8 in Chinese-influenced cultures. Unlucky symbols and events include entering and leaving a house by different doors in Greek culture, throwing rocks into the wind in Navajo culture, and ravens in Western culture. Some of these associations may derive from related facts or desires. For example, in Western culture opening an umbrella indoors might be considered unlucky partly because it could poke someone in the eye, whereas shaking hands with a chimney sweep might be considered lucky partly because it is a kind but unpleasant thing to do given the dirty nature of their work. In Chinese culture, the association of the number 4 as a homophone with the word for death may explain why it is considered unlucky. Extremely complicated and sometimes contradictory systems for prescribing auspicious and inauspicious times and arrangements of things have been devised, for example feng shui in Chinese culture and systems of astrology in various cultures around the world.

Many polytheistic religions have specific gods or goddesses that are associated with luck, including Fortuna and Felicitas in the Ancient Roman religion (the former related to the words "fortunate" and "unfortunate" in English), Dedun in Nubian religion, the Seven Lucky Gods in Japanese mythology, mythical American serviceman John Frum in Polynesian cargo cults, and the inauspicious Alakshmi in Hinduism.

                                             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The John Frum Cargo Cult

John Frum (also called John Brum, Jon Frum, or John From) is a figure associated with cargo cults on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu. He is often depicted as an American World War II serviceman who will bring wealth and prosperity to the people if they follow him. He is sometimes portrayed as black, sometimes as white. Quoting David Attenborough's report of an encounter: "'E look like you. 'E got white face. 'E tall man. 'E live 'long South America.”

History of the Cult

The religion centering on John Frum arose in the late 1930s, when Vanuatu was known as the New Hebrides, although there was a claim in 1949 that it had started in the 1910s. The movement was heavily influenced by existing religious practice in the Sulphur Bay area of Tanna, particularly the worship of Keraperamun, a god associated with Mount Tukosmera. In some versions of the story, a native man named Manehivi, using the alias "John Frum", began appearing among the native people of Tanna dressed in a Western-style coat and assuring the people he would bring them houses, clothes, food and transport.

Others contend that John Frum was a kava-induced spirit vision. Said to be a manifestation of Keraperamun, this John Frum promised the dawn of a new age in which all white people, including missionaries, would depart the New Hebrides, leaving behind their goods and property for the native Melanesians. For this to happen, however, the people of Tanna had to reject all aspects of European society including money, Western education, Christianity, and work on copra plantations, plus they had to return to traditional kastom (the Bislama language word for customs).

In 1941, followers of John Frum rid themselves of their money in a frenzy of spending, left the missionary churches, schools, villages and plantations, and moved inland to participate in traditional feasts, dances and rituals. European colonial authorities sought to suppress the movement, at one point arresting a Tannese man who was calling himself John Frum, humiliating him publicly, imprisoning and ultimately exiling him along with other leaders of the cult to another island in the archipelago.

Despite this effort, the movement gained popularity in the early 1940s, when 300,000 American troops were stationed in New Hebrides during World War II, bringing with them an enormous amount of supplies (or "cargo"). After the war and the departure of the Americans, followers of John Frum built symbolic landing strips to encourage American airplanes to land and bring them "cargo". Versions of the cult that emphasize the American connection interpret "John Frum" as a corruption of "John from (America)" (though it could mean John from anywhere), and credit the presence of African American soldiers for the idea that John Frum may be black.

In 1957, a leader of the John Frum movement, Nakomaha, created the "Tanna Army", a non-violent, ritualistic society that organised military-style parades of men whose faces were painted ritual colours and who wore white T-shirts with the letters "T-A USA" (Tanna Army USA). This parade takes place every year on February 15, the date on which followers believe John Frum will return, and which is observed as "John Frum Day" in Vanuatu.

In the late 1970s, John Frum followers opposed the imminent creation of an independent, united nation of Vanuatu. They objected to a centralised government they feared would favor western modernity and Christianity that would be detrimental to local customs. However, the John Frum movement has its own political party, led by Song Keaspai. The party celebrated its 50th anniversary on February 15, 2007. Chief Isaak Wan Nikiau, its leader, was quoted by the BBC from years past as saying that John Frum was "our God, our Jesus," and would eventually return.

In December 2011, Radio New Zealand International reported that the "president" of the John Frum movement (and jointly of Nagriamel) was Thitam Goiset, a woman of Vietnamese origin and sister of businessman Dinh Van Than, despite the leadership of these movements having been "previously [...] held by high ranking male chiefs". In 2013, Thitam Goiset was sacked from her role as Vanuatu's ambassador to Russia amid evidence of corrupt activities.

                                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Spaceflight Aborted

Soyuz MS-10 was a manned Soyuz MS spaceflight which aborted shortly after launch on 11 October 2018 due to a failure of the Soyuz booster rocket.

MS-10 was the 139th flight of a Soyuz spacecraft. It was intended to transport two members of the Expedition 57 crew to the International Space Station. A few minutes after liftoff, the craft went into contingency abort due to a booster failure and had to return to Earth. Both crew members, Roscosmos cosmonaut Aleksey Ovchinin and NASA astronaut Nick Hague, were recovered alive in good health.

The MS-10 flight abort was the first instance of a Russian manned booster accident at high altitude in 43 years, since Soyuz 18a similarly failed to make orbit in April 1975.

                                                           Soyez MS-10 at liftoff
                                                  
Mission Launch and Abort

A few minutes after liftoff, which took place at 08:40 UTC, the crew reported feeling weightless and mission control declared a booster had failed. A radio call indicated "rocket failure" had occurred 2 minutes 45 seconds into flight. Shortly after, a contingency was declared and the spacecraft carrying the crew performed an emergency separation. It returned to Earth in a ballistic trajectory, during which the crew experienced "about six to seven times Earth's gravity" followed by a successful landing. The abort occurred at an altitude of approximately 50 kilometres (31 miles); the best available estimates for the apogee are roughly 80 km (50 mi), suggesting that the mission did not cross the Kármán line and thus did not qualify as a sub-orbital spaceflight.

Recovery

At 08:55 UTC the search and rescue team was deployed to recover the crew and the spacecraft which had landed 402 kilometres (250 mi) from the launch site and 20 kilometres (12 mi) east of Jezkazgan, Kazakhstan. Approximately 25 minutes after the search and rescue team took off, NASA announced they were in contact with Ovchinin and Hague. NASA TV broadcast photographs of the crew undergoing medical tests and apparently healthy at Jezkazgan Airport at 12:04 UTC. The crew flew to the Baikonur Cosmodrome to meet their families before leaving for Moscow.

Aftermath

Following the aborted spaceflight, the Russian government announced that all future manned Soyuz launches would be suspended. Roscosmos announced that it had started a full state investigation into the incident. Roscosmos ordered a state commission to investigate the incident, and a criminal investigation is also expected, according to the BBC. Another investigation had commenced a few weeks previously into how a hole came to be drilled into the wall of the Soyuz MS-09 capsule that is now docked at the space station.

The current crew of the International Space Station has been informed of the failed flight (according to NASA live voice-over). The ISS crew can return safely in the Soyuz MS-09 capsule, but only until about late-December 2018, due to the limited lifespan of "about 200 days" of the Soyuz capsule; under existing plans, they would have to leave by mid-December. If the investigation concludes with the grounding of the Soyuz, the ISS may be abandoned until the Commercial Crew Program receives proper certification; this may result in the lack of maintenance of the ISS, but "ground controllers could keep it up and running for a while". Dimitry Rogozin, chief of Roscosmos, said that the crew are planned to fly next spring.

Friday, October 12, 2018

History of Hiawatha


Hiawatha (also known as Ayenwathaaa, Aiionwatha, or Haiëñ'wa'tha [ha.jẽʔ.waʔ.tha] in Onondaga) was a pre-colonial Native American leader and co-founder of the Iroquois Confederacy. Depending on the version of the narrative, he was a leader of the Onondaga and the Mohawk, or both. According to some versions, he was born an Onondaga, but adopted into the Mohawk.

Hiawatha was a follower of the Great Peacemaker (Deganawida), a Huron prophet and spiritual leader who proposed the unification of the Iroquois peoples, who shared common ancestry and similar languages. The Great Peacemaker was a compelling spiritual presence, but was impeded in evangelizing his prophecy by foreign affiliation and a severe speech impediment. Hiawatha, a skilled and charismatic orator, along with a clan mother named Jigonhsasee, was instrumental in persuading the Senecas, Cayugas, Onondagas, Oneidas and Mohawks to accept the Great Peacemaker's vision and band together to become the Five Nations of the Iroquois confederacy. The Tuscarora nation joined the Confederacy in 1722 to become the Sixth Nation.

Solar Eclipse

In attempting to date the Great Peacemaker and Hiawatha, focus has come to an incident related to the founding of the Iroquois Confederacy, their lifework. One rendition of the oral history eventually written down by scholars involves a division among the Seneca nation, the last nation to join the original confederacy. A violent confrontation began and was suddenly stopped when the sun darkened, and it seemed like night. Scholars have successively studied the possibilities of this being a solar eclipse since 1902 when William Canfield wrote Legends of the Iroquois; told by "the Cornplanter". Successive other scholars who mention it were (chronologically): Paul A. W. Wallace, Elizabeth Tooker, Bruce E. Johansen, Dean R. Snow, Barbara A. Mann and Jerry L. Fields, William N. Fenton, David Henige, Gary Warrick, and Neta Crawford.

Since Canfield's first mention, and the majority view, scholars have supported the 1451 AD date for the plausible solar eclipse mention. Some argue it is an insufficient fit for the description and favor 1142 AD while a few question the whole idea.

Archaeological supporting arguments have progressed. In 1982 Dean Snow considered the mainstream view of the archaeology not to support any dates for an eclipse before 1350 AD (thus ruling out the 1142 AD date.) By 1998 Fenton considered an earlier eclipse than the 1451 AD majority view unlikely but possible as long as it was after 1000 AD – a window that allows the 1142 AD date. By 2007/8 reviews considered an 1142 AD eclipse as clearly possible even if most still supported 1451 AD as the safe choice.

The Hiawatha Belt

The Hiawatha Belt is made of 6,574 wampum beads – 38 rows by 173 columns and has 892 white and 5,682 purple beads. The purple represents the sky or universe that surrounds us, while the white represents purity and Good Mind (good thoughts, forgiveness and understanding). The belt symbolizes these Five Nations from west to east in their respective territories across New York state: Seneca (keepers of the western door), Cayuga (People of the Swamp), Onondaga (Keepers of the Fire), Oneida (People of the Standing Stone) and Mohawk (keeper of the eastern door)—by open squares of white beads with the central figure signifying a tree or heart. The white open squares are connected by a white band that has no beginning or end, representing all time now and forever. The band, however, does not cross through the center of each nation, meaning that each nation is supported and unified by a common bond and that each is separate in its own identity and domain. The open center also signifies the idea of a fort protected on all sides, but open in the center, symbolizing an open heart and mind within.

 


The tree figure signifies the Onondaga Nation, capital of the League and home to the central council fire. It was on the shores of Onondaga Lake where the message of peace was "planted" and the hatchets were buried. From this tree, four white roots sprouted, carrying the message of unity and peace to the four directions.

The Hiawatha Belt has been dated to the mid-18th century. Near its center, it contains a bead made of colonial lead glass. It is believed the design is as old as the league itself, but the present belt is not the original.

The Hiawatha Belt forms the basis of the flag of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, created in the 1980s. It is the central device in the design on the reverse of the U.S. 2010 Native American dollar (also known as the Sacagawea dollar). It is also included in the logo of the Hamilton Nationals, a former Major League Lacrosse team.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Hurricane Michael

Hurricane Michael is a weakening tropical cyclone tracking over South Carolina, United States of America. With a minimum central pressure of 919 mbar (hPa; 27.14 inHg), Michael was the third-most intense hurricane to make landfall on the United States, behind the 1935 Labor Day hurricane and Hurricane Camille of 1969, the strongest hurricane to ever make landfall in the Florida Panhandle, as well as the fourth-strongest landfalling hurricane in the United States mainland by wind speed.

The thirteenth named storm, seventh hurricane, and second major hurricane of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, Michael originated from a broad low-pressure area in the western Caribbean Sea. The disturbance became a tropical depression on October 7, after nearly a week of slow development. By the next day, Michael had intensified into a hurricane near the western tip of Cuba as it moved northward. Strengthening continued in the Gulf of Mexico, first to a major hurricane on October 9, and further to a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale. Approaching the Florida Panhandle, Michael attained peak winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) as it made landfall near Mexico Beach, Florida on October 10, becoming the first to do so in the region as a Category 4 hurricane, and also the strongest storm of the season. As it moved inland, the storm weakened and began to take a northeastward trajectory toward the Chesapeake Bay.

By October 10, at least nineteen deaths had been attributed to Michael and its precursor, including thirteen in Central America and six in the United States. In Cuba, the hurricane's winds left over 200,000 people without power.

Meteorological History

Early on October 2, the NHC began monitoring a broad area of low pressure that had developed over the southwestern Caribbean Sea. While strong upper-level winds initially inhibited development, the disturbance gradually became better organized as it drifted generally northward and then eastward toward the Yucatán Peninsula. By October 6, the disturbance had developed well-organized deep convection, although it still lacked a well-defined circulation. The storm was also posing an immediate land threat to the Yucatán Peninsula and Cuba. Thus, the NHC initiated advisories on Potential Tropical Cyclone Fourteen at 21:00 UTC that day. By the morning of October 7, radar data from Belize found a closed center of circulation, while satellite estimates indicated a sufficiently organized convective pattern to classify the system as a tropical depression. The newly-formed tropical cyclone then quickly strengthened into Tropical Storm Michael at 16:55 UTC that day. The nascent system meandered before the center relocated closer to the center of deep convection, as reported by reconnaissance aircraft that was investigating the storm. Despite moderate vertical wind shear, Michael proceeded to strengthen quickly, becoming a high-end tropical storm early on October 8, as the storm's cloud pattern became better organized. Continued intensification occurred, and Michael attained hurricane status later on the same day.

Shortly afterwards, rapid intensification began to ensue as very deep bursts of convection were noted within the eyewall of the growing hurricane, as it passed through the Yucatán Channel into the Gulf of Mexico late on October 8, clipping the western end of Cuba, while a 35 nmi (65 km) wide eye was noted to be forming. The intensification process accelerated on October 9, with Michael becoming a major hurricane at 21:00 UTC that day. In addition, the central pressure in the eye was noted to have dropped about 20 mb (0.59 inHg) in the span of 6 hours into the first hours of October 10. Rapid intensification continued throughout the day as a well-defined eye appeared, culminating with Michael achieving its peak intensity at 18:00 UTC that day as a high-end Category 4 hurricane, with maximum sustained winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 919 mbar (27.14 inHg), as it made landfall near Mexico Beach, Florida, ranking by pressure as the third-most intense Atlantic hurricane to ever make landfall in the United States.

Once inland, Michael began to rapidly weaken, as it moved over the inner Southeastern United States, with the eye dissipating from satellite view, weakening to a tropical storm roughly twelve hours after it made landfall.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Shedding Tokamak Waste Heat

A new path to solving a longstanding fusion challenge: Novel design
could help shed excess heat in next-generation fusion power plants.
By David L. Chandler | MIT News Office

October 9, 2018 -- A class exercise at MIT, aided by industry researchers, has led to an innovative solution to one of the longstanding challenges facing the development of practical fusion power plants: how to get rid of excess heat that would cause structural damage to the plant.

The new solution was made possible by an innovative approach to compact fusion reactors, using high-temperature superconducting magnets. This method formed the basis for a massive new research launched this year at MIT and the creation of an independent startup company to develop the concept. The new design, unlike that of typical fusion plants, would make it possible to open the device’s internal chamber and replace critical components; this capability is essential for the newly proposed heat-draining mechanism.

The new approach is detailed in a paper in the journal Fusion Engineering and Design, authored by Adam Kuang, a graduate student from that class, along with 14 other MIT students, engineers from Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories and Commonwealth Fusion Systems, and Professor Dennis Whyte, director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, who taught the class.

In essence, Whyte explains, the shedding of heat from inside a fusion plant can be compared to the exhaust system in a car. In the new design, the “exhaust pipe” is much longer and wider than is possible in any of today’s fusion designs, making it much more effective at shedding the unwanted heat. But the engineering needed to make that possible required a great deal of complex analysis and the evaluation of many dozens of possible design alternatives.

Taming fusion plasma

Fusion harnesses the reaction that powers the sun itself, holding the promise of eventually producing clean, abundant electricity using a fuel derived from seawater — deuterium, a heavy form of hydrogen, and lithium — so the fuel supply is essentially limitless. But decades of research toward such power-producing plants have still not led to a device that produces as much power as it consumes, much less one that actually produces a net energy output.

Earlier this year, however, MIT’s proposal for a new kind of fusion plant — along with several other innovative designs being explored by others — finally made the goal of practical fusion power seem within reach. But several design challenges remain to be solved, including an effective way of shedding the internal heat from the super-hot, electrically charged material, called plasma, confined inside the device.

Most of the energy produced inside a fusion reactor is emitted in the form of neutrons, which heat a material surrounding the fusing plasma, called a blanket. In a power-producing plant, that heated blanket would in turn be used to drive a generating turbine. But about 20 percent of the energy is produced in the form of heat in the plasma itself, which somehow must be dissipated to prevent it from melting the materials that form the chamber.

No material is strong enough to withstand the heat of the plasma inside a fusion device, which reaches temperatures of millions of degrees, so the plasma is held in place by powerful magnets that prevent it from ever coming into direct contact with the interior walls of the donut-shaped fusion chamber. In typical fusion designs, a separate set of magnets is used to create a sort of side chamber to drain off excess heat, but these so-called divertors are insufficient for the high heat in the new, compact plant.

One of the desirable features of the ARC design is that it would produce power in a much smaller device than would be required from a conventional reactor of the same output. But that means more power confined in a smaller space, and thus more heat to get rid of.

“If we didn’t do anything about the heat exhaust, the mechanism would tear itself apart,” says Kuang, who is the lead author of the paper, describing the challenge the team addressed — and ultimately solved.

Inside job

In conventional fusion reactor designs, the secondary magnetic coils that create the divertor lie outside the primary ones, because there is simply no way to put these coils inside the solid primary coils. That means the secondary coils need to be large and powerful, to make their fields penetrate the chamber, and as a result they are not very precise in how they control the plasma shape.

But the new MIT-originated design, known as ARC (for advanced, robust, and compact) features magnets built in sections so they can be removed for service. This makes it possible to access the entire interior and place the secondary magnets inside the main coils instead of outside. With this new arrangement, “just by moving them closer [to the plasma] they can be significantly reduced in size,” says Kuang.

In the one-semester graduate class 22.63 (Principles of Fusion Engineering), students were divided into teams to address different aspects of the heat rejection challenge. Each team began by doing a thorough literature search to see what concepts had already been tried, then they brainstormed to come up with multiple concepts and gradually eliminated those that didn’t pan out. Those that had promise were subjected to detailed calculations and simulations, based, in part, on data from decades of research on research fusion devices such as MIT’s Alcator C-Mod, which was retired two years ago. C-Mod scientist Brian LaBombard also shared insights on new kinds of divertors, and two engineers from Mitsubishi worked with the team as well. Several of the students continued working on the project after the class ended, ultimately leading to the solution described in this new paper. The simulations demonstrated the effectiveness of the new design they settled on.

 “It was really exciting, what we discovered,” Whyte says. The result is divertors that are longer and larger, and that keep the plasma more precisely controlled. As a result, they can handle the expected intense heat loads.

“You want to make the ‘exhaust pipe’ as large as possible,” Whyte says, explaining that the placement of the secondary magnets inside the primary ones makes that possible. “It’s really a revolution for a power plant design,” he says. Not only do the high-temperature superconductors used in the ARC design’s magnets enable a compact, high-powered power plant, he says, “but they also provide a lot of options” for optimizing the design in different ways — including, it turns out, this new divertor design.

Going forward, now that the basic concept has been developed, there is plenty of room for further development and optimization, including the exact shape and placement of these secondary magnets, the team says. The researchers are working on further developing the details of the design.

“This is opening up new paths in thinking about divertors and heat management in a fusion device,” Whyte says.

“All of the ARC work has been both eye-opening and stimulating of new ways of looking at tokamak fusion reactors,” says Bruce Lipschultz, a professor of physics at the University of York, in the U.K., who was not involved in this work. This latest paper, he says, “incorporates new ideas in the field with the many other significant improvements in the tokamak concept. … The ARC study of the extended leg divertor concept shows that the application to a reactor is not impossible, as others have contended.”

Lipschultz adds that this is “very high-quality research that shows a way forward for the tokamak reactor and stimulates new research elsewhere.”

The team included MIT students Norman Cao, Alexander Creely, Cody Dennett, Jake Hecla, Adam Kuang, Alex Tinguely, Elizabeth Tolman, Hannah Hoffman, Maximillian Major, Juan Ruiz Ruiz, and Brandon Sorbom, PSFC Research Scientists Daniel Brunner and Brian LaBombard, Professor Dennis Whyte, and Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories engineers Piyush Grover and Christopher Laughman. The work was supported by MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Cheating at Chess

Cheating in chess refers to a deliberate violation of the rules of chess or other unethical behavior that is intended to give an unfair advantage to a player or team. Cheating can occur in many forms and can take place before, during, or after a game. Commonly cited instances of cheating include: collusion with spectators or other players, use of chess engines, rating manipulation, and violations of the touch-move rule. Many suspiciously motivated practices are not comprehensively covered by the rules of chess. On ethical or moral grounds only, such practices may be judged by some as acceptable, and by others as cheating.

Even if an arguably unethical action is not covered explicitly by the rules, article 11.1 of the FIDE laws of chess states: "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute." For example, while deliberately sneaking a captured piece back onto the board may be construed as an illegal move that is sanctioned by a time bonus to the opponent and a reinstatement of the last legal position, the rule forbidding actions that bring chess into disrepute may also be invoked to hand down a more severe sanction such as the loss of the game.

History and Culture

Cheating at chess is almost as old as the game itself, and may even have caused chess-related deaths. According to one legend, a dispute over cheating at chess led King Canute to murder a Danish nobleman. One of the most anthologized chess stories is Slippery Elm (1929) by Percival Wilde, which involves a ruse to allow a weak player to beat a much stronger one, using messages passed on slippery-elm throat lozenges. Television shows have engaged the plot of cheating in chess, including episodes of Mission: Impossible and Cheers. In televised shows based on humourist Tenali Rama (a real-life personality who lived under king Krishnadeva Raya, ruler of Vijaynagar during its most prosperous period), a loud-mouthed chess "unbeatable champion" (who mostly depends on winning by cheating) takes advantage of the emperor's sleep due to boredom and starts shouting along with followers (who have accompanied him from an opponent kingdom), successfully convincing the assembly that he has won.

In Satyajit Ray's Shatranj ke Khiladi (one of only two Hindi films he made – both based on short-stories by Premchand), Mirja Sajjad Ali, fed-up by his opponent's childish playing habits, has to make rules that only the piece intended to be played should be touched, and taking more than five minutes to move should simply mean defeat. (As chess clocks are still practically unknown even in modern India, it was out of question during the middle of 19th century — the period in which the film is set.)

Automaton hoaxes


In contrast to the modern methods of cheating by playing moves calculated by machines, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the public were hoaxed by the opposite deception in which machines played moves of hidden humans. The first and most famous of the chess automaton hoaxes was The Turk (1770), followed by Ajeeb (1868), and Mephisto (1886).

Collusion

Over the years, there have been many accusations of collusion, either of players deliberately losing (often to help a friend or teammate get a title norm), or of players agreeing to draws to help both players in a tournament. One of the earliest evidences is with the Fifth American Chess Congress in 1880, when Preston Ware accused James Grundy of reneging on a deal to draw the game, with Grundy instead trying to play for a win. A contemporary newspaper article noted "Ware’s avowal of his right to sell a game in a tourney was a novelty in chess ethics ... Ware’s veracity has not been questioned, only his obliquity of moral vision ..." In later defense of Ware's ethics, six prior allegations of similar collusion and bribery were listed from 1876 to 1880 alone.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis claim that Soviet chess masters may have colluded in world chess championships held from 1940 to 1964. The study argues that Soviet players agreed to draws between themselves to improve their standings. While it is generally believed that this collusion sometimes happened, opinions differ over how effective it was. For example, if a leading player draws his game, it may allow his rivals to gain ground on him by winning their games. The most infamous alleged instance, the 1962 Candidates' Tournament, is discussed further at the World Chess Championship 1963 article.

In 2011, IM Greg Shahade wrote that "prearrangement of results is extremely commonplace, even at the highest levels of chess. This especially holds true for draws... There is a bit of a code of silence at the top levels of chess." The subject had been partially broached (in the USA context) by Alex Yermolinsky a few years earlier, saying " It's no secret how people act when facing a last-round situation when a draw gives no prize ... People will just dump games, period." Concerning an incident involving 2006 US Championship qualification, Shahade blamed the Swiss system for creating perverse incentives. Frederic Friedel reported that the PCA had considered running a series of open tournaments in 1990s, but for similar reasons given by John Nunn ultimately declined, saying that deliberately losing games was "very real in the many open tournaments that are staged all over the world."

Touch-move Rule

In chess, the "touch-move" rule states that if a player (whose turn it is to move) touches one of his pieces, it must be moved if it has a legal move. In addition, if a piece is picked up and released on another square, the move must stand if it is a legal move. If an opponent's piece is touched, it must be captured if it is legal to do so. These rules are often difficult to enforce because the only witnesses are the two players themselves. Nevertheless, violations of these rules are considered to be cheating.

In one famous instance, Garry Kasparov changed his move against Judit Polgár in 1994 after momentarily letting go of a piece. Kasparov went on to win the game. The tournament officials had video records proving that his hand left the piece, but refused to release the evidence. A factor counting against Polgár was that she waited a whole day before complaining, and such claims must be made during the game. The videotape revealed that Kasparov did let go of the piece for one-quarter of a second. Cognitive psychologist Robert Solso stated that it is too short a time to make a conscious decision.

Another famous incident occurred in a game between Milan Matulović and István Bilek at the Sousse Interzonal in 1967. Matulović played a losing move but then took it back after saying "J'adoube" ("I adjust"—which should be announced before adjusting pieces on their square). His opponent complained to the arbiter but the modified move was allowed to stand. This incident earned Matulović the nickname "J'adoubović".

The 2003 European Championship saw a "takeback game" between Zurab Azmaiparashvili and Vladimir Malakhov, who eventually finished first and second in the event. To quote the book Smart Chip by Genna Sosonko:

Both grandmasters were fighting for the lead, and the encounter had huge sporting significance. In an ending that was favourable to him, Azmai[parashvili] picked up the bishop, intending to make a move with it instead of first exchanging rooks. Malakhov recalled: "Seeing that the rooks were still on the board, he said something like, "Oh, first the exchange, of course." put his bishop back, took my rook, and the game continued. I don't know what should have been done differently in this situation—in Azmai's place, some might have resigned immediately, and in my place, some would have demanded that he make a move with his bishop but I didn't want to ruin the logical development of the duel, so I didn't object when Azmai made a different move: the mistake was obviously nothing to do with chess! When we signed the score sheets, Azmai suggested to me that we consider the game a draw. After the game I was left with an unpleasant aftertaste, but that was due mainly to my own play."

Cheating with Technology

Technology has been used by chess cheats in several ways. Perhaps the most common way is to use a chess program while playing chess remotely, e.g., on the Internet. Another type of cheating, with the aim of boosting one's rating on an Internet chess site, is to sign on with a different IP address and user name (a form of sockpuppetry) to play and lose against themselves. Electronic communication with an accomplice during face-to-face competitive chess is another reported type of cheating. Games can be analyzed after the fact to give a probabilistic determination on whether a player received surreptitious help.

Incidents


Due to the great multiplication of technological cheating incidents, the following examples concentrate only on those that are either at a high level, or are of historical significance.

High-profile


  • In the 2010 FIDE Olympiad Tournament at Khanty-Mansiysk, three French players were caught in a scheme to use a computer program to decide moves. Their plan involved one player, Cyril Marzolo, following the tournament at home and using the computer program to decide the best moves. He would send the moves by SMS to the team coach, Arnaud Hauchard, who would then stand or sit at various tables as a signal to the player, Sébastien Feller, to make a certain move. Sébastien Feller was given a two-year and nine months suspension, Cyril Marzolo was given a one-year and six-month suspension, and Arnaud Hauchard was given a three-year suspension by the FIDE Ethics Commission. Unlike other cases, each player involved was a legitimate Grandmaster or International Master. None of the other players on the team knew of this or were involved.
  • The scandals of Borislav Ivanov were a cause celebre in the chess world in 2012 and 2013, with first cheating being alleged at the Zadar Open, and then Kyustendil. He was banned for four months by the Bulgarian Chess Federation, though this ban was overturned due to procedural defects, and was not based upon the cheating allegations, but rather Ivanov's rude behavior toward his accusers. After various interludes, he was banned permanently by the Bulgarian Chess Federation. The incidents were significant as they were one of the first times that statistical methods were used to analyze move-matching with computer programs, even though in the end such evidence was never used in a formal legal procedure.
  • At the 2014 Iasi Open 2014, Wesley Vermeulen was caught cheating by consulting a mobile phone in the toilet, admitted his offense, and was eventually banned for one year by both the Dutch chess federation and FIDE.
  • In April 2015, Georgian grandmaster Gaioz Nigalidze was banned from the Dubai Open Chess Tournament after officials discovered him consulting a smartphone with chess software in the washroom during a game. He was later stripped of his grandmaster title and banned from competition for three years, though he was allowed to keep his International Master title.
  • In February 2016, Sergey Aslanov was expelled from the Moscow Open, for a smartphone in the toilet, hidden under a loose tile behind a drainpipe. He declared himself to be guilty of error but not a crime, and was only suspended for one year.

Historical


  • One of the earliest known cases of using technology to cheat occurred in the 1993 World Open. An unrated newcomer wearing headphones used the name "John von Neumann" (matching the name of a famous computer science pioneer), and scored 4½/9 in the Open Section, including a draw with a grandmaster and a win over a 2350-rated player. This player seemed to have a suspicious bulge in one of his pockets, which appeared to make a soft humming or buzzing sound at important points in the game. When he was quizzed by the tournament director, he was unable to demonstrate even a rudimentary knowledge of some simple chess concepts, and he was disqualified.
  • The 1998 Böblinger Open saw Clemens Allwermann latterly accused of cheating using Fritz, and after an investigation by the district attorney was inconclusive as to the evidence, the Bavarian Chess Federation barred him from participating in future tournaments.
  • In the Lampertheim Open Tournament 2002 the arbiter announced the disqualification of a player before round seven. Markus Keller explained what had happened:

In the sixth round a player came to me and said he suspected his opponent, W.S. from L., was using illicit aids during the game. He often left the board for protracted periods of time to go to the toilet, even when (especially when) it was his turn to play. He had done this in earlier rounds against other players as well. I watched W.S. and noticed that he played a number of moves very rapidly and then disappeared in the toilet. I followed him and could hear no sound coming from the stall. I looked under the door and saw that his feet were pointing sideways, so that he could not have been using the toilet. So I entered the neighbouring stall, stood on the toilet bowl and looked over the dividing wall. I saw W.S. standing there with a handheld PC which displayed a running chess program. He was using a stylus to operate it. I immediately disqualified the player. When confronted he claimed that he was only checking his emails, so I asked him to show me the computer, which he refused to do. There are witnesses for my investigation in the toilet, and we will ask the chess federation of our state to ban the player from playing in other tournaments.

  • In the HB Global Chess Challenge 2005 (in Minneapolis, Minnesota), a player in the Under-2000 section exited the event under suspicion of cheating, while his final-round game was under way. According to tournament officials, he was caught repeatedly talking on his cell phone during his game—which the published rules for that event expressly prohibited. Directors suspected that he was receiving moves over the phone from an accomplice elsewhere in the building. His results were expunged from the tournament and an ethics complaint lodged. Six weeks later, the same player entered the World Open and tied for first through third place in the Under-2200 section, pocketing $5,833. An attempt was made to eject him midway through that event, when the organizers belatedly learned about the earlier incident in Minnesota. But, lacking any specific allegation that he was cheating in the World Open, they backtracked and re-admitted him after he threatened legal action.
  • In the Subroto Mukerjee memorial international rating chess tournament 2006, an Indian chess player was banned from playing competitive chess for ten years due to cheating. During the tournament at Subroto Park, Umakant Sharma was caught receiving instructions from an accomplice using a chess computer via a Bluetooth-enabled device which had been sewn into his cap. His accomplices were outside the building, and were relaying moves from a computer simulation. Officials became suspicious after Sharma had made unusually large gains in rating points during the previous 18 months, even qualifying for the national championship. Umakant began the year with an average rating of 1933, and in 64 games gained over 500 points to attain a rating of 2484. Officials received multiple written complaints alleging that Umakant's moves were in exactly the same sequence suggested by the chess computer. Eventually, in the seventh round of the tournament, Indian Air Force officials searched the players on the top eight boards with a metal detector and found that Umakant was the only player who was cheating. Umakant's ten-year ban was imposed by the All India Chess Federation (AICF) after reviewing evidence presented by Umakant himself and the electronic devices seized by the tournament organizers. The penalty was considered harsh, especially considering that those in other sports who have been found to be doping and match fixing did not receive such lengthy suspensions. When officials were asked about the suspension they stated, "We wanted to be frank and send a stern message to all players. It is like cheating on exams."
  • In the Philadelphia World Open 2006, Steve Rosenberg, who was playing in a lower section, was leading before the final round. A victory would have been worth about $18,000. He was confronted by a tournament director and found to be using a wireless transmitter and receiver called a "Phonito". He was disqualified from the event.
  • In a Dutch League 2C 2007 match between Bergen op Zoom and AAS, the arbiter caught the team captain of AAS (who was playing on board 6) using a PDA. The player was outside the playing hall, with permission, to get some fresh air. The arbiter had followed him and caught him using Pocket Fritz. On the screen, the actual position of the game was shown. The arbiter declared the game lost and informed the Dutch Federation about the incident. The competition manager communicated a heavy penalty: the player was banned from playing in the Dutch League and Cup matches, not only for that season, but also for the next two seasons. The competition manager applied article 20.3 of the Federation's competition regulations.
  • In the Dubai Open 2008, M. Sadatnajafi, an untitled Iranian player (rated 2288 at the time), was disqualified from the tournament after he was caught receiving suggested moves by text message on his mobile phone while playing Grandmaster Li Chao. The game was being relayed live over the Internet and it was alleged that his friends were following it and guiding him using a computer.
  • In the Norths Chess Club Centenary Year Under 1600 Tournament a 14-year-old boy was caught using what the arbiter called a "hand-held machine" in the toilets. The game was declared lost and the boy was expelled from the tournament. He was using the program Chessmaster on a PlayStation Portable, and that was probably the reason why the moves were not particularly strong. It was the first example of a chess player getting caught while using an electronic device in Australia, and so it quickly became a big story in the relatively small Australian chess community.
  • In the German Chess Championship 2011, FM Christoph Natsidis used a chess program on his smartphone during his last-round game against GM Sebastian Siebrecht. Natsidis admitted that he had cheated, and was disqualified from the championship.
  • At the 2012 Virginia Scholastic and Collegiate Championships, a player was caught using a chess engine running on a PDA. The player was disqualified from the tournament, had his membership to the Virginia Chess Federation suspended, and had an ethics complaint filed to the USCF. Unlike other incidents, the player was using the chess engine disguised as using eNotate, which is one of two electronic chess notation programs permitted to be used at USCF tournaments. While the player only admitted to using the chess engine in that one match, his results suggested he had been using the program for several tournaments.
  • At the 2013 Cork Congress Chess Open, a 16-year-old player was found to be using a chess program on a smartphone when his opponent, a Gabriel Mirza, confronted him in the toilets, kicking down the cubicle door and physically hauling him out. Mirza received a ten-month ban for bringing chess into disrepute for his violent conduct, while his opponent was only banned for four months.
  • In January 2016, the blind Norwegian player Stein Bjørnsen was accused of cheating after playing games that showed a very high correlation with computer analysis. Due to his disability, Bjørnsen had been allowed to keep a record of his moves with a recorder coupled to an ear plug. The ear plug was later found to be incompatible with the recorder, but capable of receiving messages by Bluetooth. In April 2016 he received a two-year ban on domestic competition from the Central Board of the Norwegian Chess Federation (NSF). Bjørnsen's appeal to the federation's rules committee was turned down in September 2016. Bjørnson returned in 2018 after serving the ban. In March that year he was caught with a Bluetooth earpiece taped to his hand during a club tournament in Horten. The federation expelled Bjørnsen in May 2018.

Rating Manipulation

Since the introduction of Elo ratings in the 1960s, a number of attempts have been made to manipulate the rating system, either to deliberately inflate one's rating or to disguise one's strength by deliberately losing rating points.

Sandbagging


Sandbagging involves deliberately losing rated games in order to lower one's rating so that one is eligible to enter the lower rated section of a tournament with substantial prize money. This is most common in the United States, where the prize money for large open tournaments can be over $10,000, even in the lower rated sections. Sandbagging is very difficult to detect and prove, so USCF has included minimum ratings based on previous ratings or money winnings to minimize the effect.

Small pools of players


A limited pool of players who rarely or never play against players from outside of that pool can cause distortions in the Elo rating system, especially if one or more of the players is significantly stronger than the others, or if the results are deliberately manipulated.

Claude Bloodgood was accused of manipulating the USCF rating system in this way; at his peak in 1996 his USCF rating was in excess of 2700, the second highest in the country at the time. As a long-term prison inmate, he was necessarily restricted in the range of opponents available to him. The USCF suspected that he had deliberately inflated the ratings of his opponents; Bloodgood denied this, attributing his inflated rating to a quirk in the rating system resulting from his regularly playing against a limited pool of much weaker players.

There was widespread reporting of anomalous Burmese (Myanmar) rating movements in the late 1990s, with Milan Novkovic giving an analysis of manipulation in Schach magazine.

False tournament reports


The most notable international example of ratings manipulation involves Romanian Alexandru Crisan, who allegedly falsified tournament reports to gain a Grandmaster title and was ranked 33rd in the world on the April 2001 FIDE rating list. A committee overseeing the matter recommended his rating be erased and his Grandmaster title revoked. While the Romanian Chess Federation initially favored action against Crisan, eventually he himself became the RCF president and changed the policy, creating such a situation that FIDE intervened to broker a resolution regarding many problems in the RCF, including Crisan's rating. Crisan then was arrested and imprisoned on fraud charges relating to his management of the company Urex Rovinari and disappeared from chess, thus failing to fulfill the conditions of the resolution and so activating the above recommendations regarding title revocation. FIDE did not fully update its online information until August 2015, when all his titles were removed and his rating adjusted downwards to 2132. When writing about the Crisan case, Ian Rogers alleges that Andrei Makarov (at the time a FIDE vice-president and Russian chess federation president) had arranged an IM title for himself through nonexistent tournaments in 1994.

Rumors of rigged tournaments are not unheard of in the chess world. For instance, in 2005, FIDE refused to ratify norms from the Alushta (Ukraine) tournaments, claiming that the games did not meet ethical expectations. A number of players involved protested over the matter. A different Ukrainian tournament in 2005 was found to be completely fake. Usually the strongest players are not involved in these, as they are more for careerist players to gain title norms or small rating gains, but Zurab Azmaiparashvili was alleged to have rigged the results of the Strumica tournament of 1995 to allow him to reach the chess elite. In 2003, Sveshnikov referred to these high-profile Crisan and Azmaiparashvili incidents as "open secrets", at a time when both purported culprits were heavily involved in FIDE politics.

Simultaneous Games

A player with no knowledge of chess can achieve a 50% score in simultaneous chess by replicating the moves made by one of his white opponents in a match against a black opponent, and vice versa; the opponents in effect play each other rather than the giver of the simul. This may be considered cheating in some events such as Basque chess. This can be used against any even number of opponents. Stage magician Derren Brown used the trick against eight leading British chess players in his television show. However, whether this results in any practical method of cheating is debatable since the system depends on the fact that the second player has to make the move first so that it can be replicated back on the first board. If the second player does not make a timely move, the cheating player is forced to make a move on the first board which may not coincide with the eventual move decided upon by his second opponent. This will immediately make the two games discordant and the chance for recovering back to identical positions where the second players moves can be successfully duplicated back onto the first board becomes impractical given the large number of possible moves in chess.

                                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess